Hansard, 1975-03-27

Under the provisions of clause 2 (d) of Article 30 of the Constitution of Singapore, I have granted permission to the following Members to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated:- Mr Lee Khoon Choy (Hong Lim), Minister of State for Foreign Affairs - from 29th to 31st March, 1975. Mr Ong Pang Boon (Telok Ayer), Minister for Labour - from 31st March to 14th April, 1975. Mr J. F. Conceicao (Katong) - from 31st March to 22nd April, 1975. Encik Othman Bin Wok (Pasir Panjang), Minister for Social Affairs - from 3rd to 6th April, 1975. YEOH GHIM SENG Speaker, Parliament of Singapore

asked the Minister for Labour (a) how many inspections were made on registered factories by (i) the Factory Inspectorate; and (ii) the Industrial Health Unit, in 1974; and (b) of those inspections (i) how many arose from complaints received from workers, unions and others; and (iii) how many were unannounced or surprise inspections.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1974 the Factory Inspectorate of the Ministry made 5,915 inspections on registered factories. If the figure were to include those made to factory premises prior to their registration, then the figure is 6,189. Of these, 411 visits were made as a result of complaints received by the Factory Inspectorate from workers, persons living close to factories and members of the public. The majority of the complaints were about noise and air pollution from factories. As it is not the practice for Factory Inspectors to make appointments with factory occupiers before they inspect their factories, most of the inspection visits made last year were unannounced or surprise visits. The Factory Inspectorate, however, does not keep separate statistics on unannounced or surprise inspections. Where the Industrial Health Unit is concerned, it made 1,000 inspections in 1974. Of these, 160 inspections were made in connection with complaints. A total of 55 complaints were received in 1974; 20 (or 36%) were from workers and unions and 35 (or 64%) were from neighbouring residents and anonymous callers. Of the 1,000 inspections made last year, about 80% were made without prior notice given to factory occupiers. However, the remaining 20% were announced visits as arrangements had to be made with the management for a suitably qualified person to be present to clarify details of processes operating in the factory.

asked the Minister for the Environment (a) how many inspections have been made by his Ministry under the Food Regulations. 1974 since the Regulations were brought into operation; and (b) how many infringements have been detected and what action has been taken against the offenders.

Sir, the Food Regulations, 1974, were brought into operation on 1st May, 1974. These Regulations were made under the Sale of Food Act, which came into operation in May, 1973. The Food Regulations, 1974, govern the standards of the food sold in Singapore, while the inspections and prosecutions against offenders are mainly done under the Sale of Food Act. Inspections of food sold, kept or intended for sale are carried out daily by the staff of the Ministry of the Environment. The total number of inspections made under the Sale of Food Act and the Food Regulations, 1974, from May 1973 to February 1975 is 28,219. The details of the inspections made are as follows:- No. of Type Visits (a) Inspection of public markets 2,474 (b) Inspection of private markets 1,973 (c) Inspection of provision shops, supermarkets and other premises 21,866 (d) Inspection of ice-cream factories 1,020 (e) Examination of food as requested by importers and traders 664 (f) Destruction of usound food 70 (g) Investigation of complaints related to food 63 (h) Investigation of food poisoning incidents 89 ------- Total 28,219 ======= Summons action has been taken against offenders for infringing the Sale of Food Act, 1973, and the Regulations made thereunder. From May 1973 to February 1975 there were 356 convictions. The breakdown figures of the offences are as follows:- No. of Nature of Offence Convictions Food - labelling 51 Food containing prohibited preservatives 62 Food containing excessive preservatives 55 Food containing artificial sweetening agents without licence 88 Food - adulterated 19 Food containing prohibited colour 36 Food - not of the quality, nature or substance demaned by purchaser 15 Food - unfit for unman consumption 11 Food containing metals 5 Importaion of Filled Milk 1 Food containing mineral oil 10 Food containing excessive arsenic 3 Total 356

2.38 p.m. Resolved, "That the Second Reading of the Parliamentary Pensions (Amendment) Bill be taken after a few other items on the Order Paper have been dealt with." - [Mr E. W. Barker].

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill seeks to amend the provisions of the Local Government Integration Act (Chapter 210 of the Revised Edition) which deals with the construction, widening and repair of public and private streets and back-lanes. In view of the massive urban renewal programme that is being carried out to the city and the Government's desire to further implement the Garden City concept, it has been found necessary to make certain amendments to the Local Government Integration Act to empower the Director of Public Works to achieve this objective more readily. I will now draw Members' attention to the more significant clauses of the Bill. Clause 3 seeks to add a new section 16A to the Act to facilitate the vesting in the Government of lands which have been set aside as road reserves pursuant to development proposals approved by the competent authority under the Planning Act. All these road reserves will eventually be made up into new or enlarged public streets. It is customary for the owners of lands to agree to surrender part of their lands for road reserves to the Government without charge in consideration of the approval given for their development plans. The new section 16A will facilitate the vesting in the Government of such lands which have been set aside as road reserves. Clause 5 seeks to amend section 18 of the Act to empower the Government to require a developer or owner of a property constructing a new street to make provision for the planting of trees along the new street. Section 18 of the Act is also amended to require any person erecting any building or planting of any hedge within any land set aside as a road reserve to seek the prior approval of the Director of Public Works. Clause 7 seeks to amend section 28 of the Act, which empowers the Director of Public Works to acquire premises for the widening of streets, to provide that no compensation shall be payable for the acquisition of any premises for the purposes of street-making when the premises are within the street reserves set aside pursuant to any development proposal approved by the competent authority. Since the owner of the premises has agreed to surrender the land free of charge to the Government, the Government should not pay for the building standing on the premises. Clause 9 seeks to amend section 58 of the Act to enable the Director of Public Works to construct back-lanes and to recover the cost thereof from the owners of properties fronting these back-lanes. Under the existing provision the cost of constructing back-lanes is borne by the Government. Clause 10 seeks to amend section 102 of the Act to empower the competent authority to impose interest charges at a rate not exceeding 6% per annum for late payments levied under the Act. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr E. W. Barker]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 2.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, quit rents are payable to the Government in respect of lands held under State leases as well as Statutory Land Grants which are grants in perpetuity issued under the State Lands Act. In the case of land held under a State lease, the owner may make an application under the Apportionment of Rents Act for apportionment of the rent payable in respect of the land, where there has been a subdivision. The Act does not, however, make it mandatory for the owner to make an application for apportionment and often no such application is made. In such a case, the Collector of Land Revenue can only apportion the rent when the subdivision of the land subsequently comes to his knowledge. This procedure has been found to be unsatisfactory and entails delay in apportionment of the rent. Moreover, land held under a Statutory Land Grant does not at present fall within the ambit of the Apportionment of Rents Act. An apportionment of the rent payable in respect of such land is done administratively. The Bill now before this House will make it mandatory for the owner of land held either on a State lease or a Statutory Land Grant to inform the Collector of Land Revenue of any approved subdivision of his land by the Competent Authority under the Planning Act, so that the apportionment of the rent may be appropriately made without delay. Under the Bill a penalty not exceeding $500 will be imposed for non-compliance with this requirement. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to request the Minister to explain to this House why it is necessary to make it obligatory for a landowner to inform the Collector of Land Revenue of any approved subdivision. Why not make it obligatory for the relevant authority to inform the Collector of Land Revenue of the subdivision when approving the application? I can understand the situation where if a landowner subdivides his land without Government approval, then it is fair that he must inform the Government. I find it rather difficult to perceive in this particular situation where the Government approves an application for land subdivision and then requires the landowner to inform the Government that his application has been approved by the Government. I would have thought that this is a simple inter-departmental communication - one arm of the Government telling the other arm what is happening. Why rely on the people to do the transmission work and then penalise them on default?

Sir, sometimes, as the Member has pointed out in the Budget debate, one Government department does not inform the other department. It usually does, but sometimes one does not catch up with the other. Therefore, the object of the Bill is to put the burden on the applicant, whose application for subdivision has been approved, to in-form the relevant department so that the Collector may apportion the rent. The penalty provided is really not excessive for non-compliance.

Sir, first of all, may I say that I fully support this amendment Bill. I would like to seek clarification from the Minister. 1 note that in the Explanatory Statement to the Bill a penalty not exceeding $500 will be imposed for non-compliance with this new requirement. I think this penalty is far too small a sum to impose. I believe that during the property boom land prices soared up to incredible levels. As a result, quite a number of landowners put up subdivisions of land for eventual sale. If that is the case, then the penalty on them must be heavy enough to deter them from taking the law into their own hands. I hope the Minister would care to clarify this point.

Sir, there is nothing to clarify. This is a new amendment and, in the light of what the Member for Kim Keat has stated, I would prefer to leave the maximum penalty at $500 rather than to impose a punishment which might be too punitive.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister said that the purpose of the Bill is to enable the Collector of Land Revenue to apportion the rent. I am of the view that it is rather premature to inform the Collector within one month from the date of obtaining approval of subdivision from the relevant authority, as the land would still be under the same ownership at that stage. Therefore, the question of apportionment of rent does not arise. Besides, the owner of the land may decide not to proceed further with the subdivision. He may decide not to obtain separate titles for the subdivided plot through the Registrar of Land Titles and Deeds. The apportionment of rent will only be effected when separate titles for the approved subdivided plots are issued. Would the Minister not agree then that it would be more appropriate for the Collector of Land Revenue to be informed at that stage in order to enable him to apportion the rent?

No, Sir. The lessee or grantee is asked, after he has obtained written permission from the competent authority to subdivide his land, to inform or make a notification to the Collector in writing within one month from the date of approval. If he changes his mind, he can always inform the Collector again. But the important date is when the subdivision has taken place. Conveyance might be done later. 1 think one month should be ample time for the purposes of this Bill. In any event should the Member be proved right, and if there are teething troubles with this Bill, we will extend this period.

Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for his explanation. If the Bill must be passed today as it stands, and I believe it is going to be passed, may I make an appeal on behalf of the ordinary citizen? We know that ordinary citizens are not conversant with the numerous legislations that exist and are usually unaware of the hidden rules and regulations which are introduced from time to time as amendments are made to this or that Act. May I request the Minister, therefore, to assure the House that he will instruct the relevant authority, when approving any subdivision of land, to advise the landowner of his obligation to inform the Collector of Land Revenue of such approval within one month from the date of granting of the written permission.

Yes, Sir, we will do that.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr E.W. Barker]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 2.57 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The principal amendments that are proposed in the Bill appear in clauses 2 and 8 and are designed to confer some measure of protection upon finance companies which are owners of motor vehicles subject to hire purchase agreements and which suffer loss due to acts or omissions on the part of the hirers of such motor vehicles. These amendments, if passed, will in no way detract from the paramount policy of the principal Act, which is to safeguard the interests of hirers under hire purchase agreements, as part of the larger field of consumer protection. They will, however, ensure that hirers will be less likely to abuse their rights under the agreements to the disadvantage of the lawful owners of these motor vehicles. Clause 2 which amends section 26 of the Act makes it mandatory for a hirer to inform the owner of the vehicle (the finance company) in the event that he changes his registered insurer during the period of the hire-purchase agreement. In the past, the new registered insurer, not being aware of the interest in the motor vehicle of the finance company, have, in some instances, where there has been a claim on a total loss basis by the insured hirer, made payments on a total loss basis direct to the hirer. Although the owners have a right at common law to sue the hirer in respect of their interest in the motor vehicle, this has not been shown to be a satisfactory remedy, for hirers have been known to disappear with the insurance monies received from the insurers. This amendment, accordingly, places a legal obligation upon the hirer, who by virtue of section 26 (1) of the Act alone must choose his registered insurer, to advise the owner if he decides to change his insurer. The owner will then inform the insurer of his interest in the motor vehicle under the Hire-Purchase agreement. Clause 3 amends section 33 (c) of the Act in such a way as to provide greater flexibility in adjusting interest rates payable on overdue instalments. With the recent rise in interest rates in money markets the existing provision in this section fixing a ceiling of 9% per annum which finance companies may charge is unrealistic, having regard to the cost of these companies of borrowing money. It is, therefore, proposed that a maximum rate of 12% per annum should be fixed in section 33 (c) but at the same time to confer upon the Minister power to determine such lower rate from time to time as he may think fit. This lower rate, it is envisaged, should correspond approximately to prevailing commercial rates. Though interest rates now appear to be on a downtrend, they are likely to remain well above historical rates. The other major amendment appears in clause 8 which amends the Fourth Schedule. The effect of this amendment will be to reduce the number of notices to repossess (under section 15 (1) ) that are sent out by finance companies to hirers who tend to be continually in default in their payment of instalments. Such hirers often find themselves in further arrears of instalments which have fallen due after the date of the notice. The existing Notice, therefore, fails to reflect the true position of the amount of arrears that are due up to the time that the finance company takes action to repossess. The amendment, accordingly is designed to deal with this matter by providing that the hirer, in order to avoid repossession, must pay all arrears of instalments that have fallen due since the date of the Notice. Finally, the amendments proposed in clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7 seek to increase the penalties provided for in sections 35, 36, 37 and 38 respectively of the Act. These penalties, with the passing of time, have become a little unrealistic. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr E. W. Barker]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.04 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, there have been complaints from the public that there are owners of Housing and Development Board flats who acquire and then let out other immovable properties while they are still staying in HDB flats. In order to ensure that the Board's flats are in the hands of those people who deserve them and to avoid longer frustration by those on the Board's waiting list (at the moment there is a waiting list of about 100,000 applications), this Bill will introduce the following measures:-

Mr Speaker, Sir, whilst I fully support this Bill, I would like to seek clarification from the Minister with regard to clause 10, which is to insert a new section 48A (1), paragraph (i), and I quote: `(i) if, in the opinion of the Board, the flat, house or other living accommodation is not being occupied by such minimum number of persons as the Board may require; or' Sir, it may well be that a flat owner in the service of a company may be transferred out for an overseas assignment. It is also possible that his family will have to go along with him, and the flat will be left vacant. If this is the case, will the Minister consider, in view of the nature of work to which the flat owner is committed, allowing the owner to continue to own the flat in his name? I have come across a case which comes under this particular provision as laid down in this proposed new section 48A (1) (i) in clause 10 of the Bill. 3.15 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, our Government has all along been advocating the policy of home ownership for the people in order to look after their welfare. The people can thus own their own homes and have a sense of security in life. This amendment Bill therefore has come as a surprise. Certain provisions in the Bill are rather vague and will cause concern and confusion among the people. I am referring particularly to the provisions of clauses 5 and 8 of the Bill which, I think, ought to be clarified. Clause 5 provides that no person shall be entitled to purchase an HDB flat if he, his spouse or any authorised occupier, is the owner of any other immovable property. What will be the position of a person who owns a shophouse or a nonresidential property in the name of a company or on behalf of a company, or who jointly owns such property with a company? Will he be entitled to apply to purchase a Housing Board flat? According to the Public Relations Officer of the HDB, after the Bill has been passed the Housing Board will announce details specifying the circumstances under which persons are entitled to purchase flats and those who are not entitled to purchase flats. May I ask why should the details of these new provisions be explained to the people after the Bill has been passed? Is this not tantamount to effecting the law before any prior information has been given? The people who suffer will be those who live in the HDB flats. They will be at the mercy of the Housing Board after due passage of the Bill. Therefore, I hope the Minister will be able to clarify these two vague provisions as to which category of persons possessing which types of property are or are not entitled to buy HDB. flats, so as to enable us to understand the intentions of this Bill and its measures in detail. Sir, another provision in the Bill provides that, under certain circumstances, the Housing Board can repossess a flat upon the death of the owner, whether or not the owner has left a will. Again the Housing Board officials also said that after the Bill has been passed and become law, the Board will notify the people concerned of the circumstances under which the flat could be bought back by the Board upon the death of the flat owner. Sir, I hope the Minister would consider the fact that flat owners are not wealthy property owners. Most of them are not conversant with the law and being in the low-income group they are not able to take on any additional burden that is imposed on them. The Government should have sympathy for the hardship of the people and simplify all the necessary procedures. The Government should follow the example of the Central Provident Fund Board system of authorising a nominee successor to administrate the estate, which system is for the convenience of the people and also to reduce their burden. I hope the Minister can enlighten us with a clarification as well as a direction on these matters. 3.20 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am in general support of the amendment Bill. However, I feel that clause 5, which prohibits persons who have sold property within 30 months prior to date of application, has the unfortunate effect of penalising widows and orphans who may be forced by circumstances to sell their homes. Such widows and orphans will then be forced to wait six or seven years before getting a flat. I hope the Minister: will amend this particular clause of the Bill.

Sir, as I pointed out earlier, the whole purpose of this Bill is to ensure that the Board's flats remain in the hands of people who deserve them and to avoid frustration by those on the Board's waiting list. At the moment, there are 75,000 applicants wanting to buy flats and about 25,000 wanting to rent them. The object of this Bill is not to make things worse for widows and orphans or for the poor people living in HDB flats. I have spelt out earlier in my speech details of the circumstances under which people who have bought flats will lose them. In my view, the provisions set out under clauses 5 and 8 are quite clear. One deals with the position where the owner, his spouse or any authorised occupier is the owner of any other flat, house, building or land or has an estate or interest therein; or has, at any time within 30 months immediately prior to the date of making an application to the Board to purchase a flat, sold any flat, house, building or land. The Member for Whampoa takes objection to the 30-month condition. It has been the experience of the Board that this period is reasonable enough for people to dispose of their properties, which may be substantial properties, and with the proceeds buy a five-room flat. The Member for Punggol is worried about people who have to leave the country after buying a flat. They do not have to give up the flat. All they have to do in such cases is to inform the Board. As for the other clause which deals with the position where the owner of an HDB flat dies, either testate or intestate and his executors or administrators do nothing about it for years, the purpose is to give them one year which should be enough time to take out either Letters of Administration or Probate of the Will so that the legal formalities in respect of the flat can be put right. Otherwise if they do nothing, the Board cannot do anything. Hence this clause.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr E. W. Barker], Bill considered in Committee.

3.25 p.m. Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 6 - Amendment made: In page 6, line 11, at end, to add- "(2) This section shall apply to any instrument lodged before, on or after the date of the commencement of the Housing and Development (Amendment) Act, 1975.".-[Mr E. W. Barker].

There is a consequential amendment to be made. In page 5, line 38, after "42.", to insert "-

There is a consequential amendment to be made. In page 6, line 15, to leave out the open inverted commas. This will be done. Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 8 and 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 10 -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 10, line 19, to leave out "or his spouse" and insert ", his spouse or any authorised occupier". This amendment will enable the Board to compulsorily acquire any flat, house or other living accommodation sold subject to the provisions of this Part, if an authorised occupier has at any time whether before or after the date of commencement of the Housing and Development (Amendment) Act, 1975, acquired whether by operation of law or otherwise any title to or an estate or interest in any other flat, house, building or land. Amendment agreed to. Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 11 to 15 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." For officers in the public service, the Pensions Act sets out conditions under which pensions are withheld either wholly or partially. Section 5 lists offences for negligence, irregularity or misconduct. A disciplinary committee of inquiry will determine the degree of culpability. In section 14 pensions are withheld completely for any term of imprisonment for any crime or offence. It has taken the Government some time to decide how to modify these provisions to apply them to Parliamentary Pensions under the different circumstances for Members of Parliament, Political Secretaries, Parliamentary Secretaries, Ministers of State and Ministers. The Government decided that to withhold part of an MP's or Minister's pension for any negligence, irregularity or misconduct was not practical. It would have to follow the findings of a disciplinary committee of fellow-Ministers and MPs. Nor was it appropriate since the careers and responsibilities of MPs and Ministers were different from those of public officers. Nor does imprisonment for any crime or offence unconnected with parliamentary or ministerial duties appear valid ground for the withholding of pension. But there can be no question that if any Minister, Minister of State, Parliamentary Secretary, Political Secretary or MP has been convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, or of any crime involving corruption under any other written law, even if he has only been fined and not imprisoned, then this warrants the withholding of the pension. The President, after consideration of the record of the proceedings of the Court, will decide whether the whole or a part of any pension should be withheld. Every Honourable Member knows that nothing is more likely to lower standards of integrity in the conduct of government than to have a member of the political leadership setting a bad example. All those who hold office must abide by strict standards of public and private conduct. It is not possible to enforce high standards of integrity in the civil service if the political leadership tolerates any corrupt behaviour amongst its own ranks. An MP or a Minister must take the consequences of any corrupt act. Losing his pension is one of the least of the sanctions. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Prime Minister]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.38 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Members are aware of the Government's efforts to make Singapore a garden city and to provide recreational facilities for the urban population. For these purposes the Ministry of Law and National Development set up the Parks and Recreation Division in the Public Works Department. The powers which are vested in the Commissioner for parks and Recreation are at the moment found in several pieces of legislation, namely, the Trees and Plants (Preservation and Improvement of Amenities) Act, 1970, (Act 59 of 1970), the Botanic Gardens Act (Chapter 300) and Part V of the Local Government Integration Act (Chapter 210). Since it has been found necessary to amend the existing legislation to vest in the Commissioner new powers to enable him to carry out his work, the opportunity has been taken to revise all the various legislation pertaining to parks and trees. This Bill, therefore, seeks to amend and consolidate the law which is found in the various Acts which I have referred to. The main changes which will be made to the existing legislation are as follows:-

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill, the purpose of which is to promote the planting and protection of trees and flowers in order to make Singapore a garden city. Over the past few years the Government has observed one day in the year as the national "Tree Planting Day" to encourage people to plant more trees and shrubs in order to beautify our environment in the concept of a Garden City. Sir, the people in my constituency have been supporting this campaign every year. On "Tree Planting Day" hundreds of people of different races would turn up voluntarily to take part in tree planting. Thus they have not only shown enthusiasm in their support of the annual Tree Planting Day, but they have also in their daily life been actively promoting this concept by planting trees and shrubs on empty plots around their shophouses or houses to beautify and uplift the environment. Sir, the Parks and Recreation Division under the Ministry of National Development has contributed a lot towards achieving the objective of beautifying our environment. For instance, the stretch of land along the east coast from Tanjong Rhu to Bedok is being developed into a public seaside park. This is being developed into a first class public resort of international standard even for tourists. But as regards tree planting at other places there are certain shortcomings. For instance, along Bras Basah Road and Robinson Road the PWD has planted trees along that side of the road which originally was a pedestrian walk. I think this is not quite right because the roads are already quite narrow and in view of the traffic congestion along these roads, the demand for road space is very urgent. So it would be proper for the PWD to widen the roads instead of planting trees along the sides, which worsens the traffic congestion. Planting trees at random without proper or advance planning is a sheer waste of public money because tree planting costs a lot of money. One tree can cost several hundred dollars if a contractor were to do it. This is a waste of public funds and is not justified. So I would urge the Minister to give careful consideration in advance before planting any more trees. Another matter relates to a strange complaint which I have received. This is the case of a private landowner who wanted to develop his land, but there stood in the way a big tree several decades old. The developer applied for permission to cut it down. The authorities concerned said that the tree could not be cut down because it is under the protection of the law. The landowner feels that there is no reason for the authorities to deny him permission to fell the tree which stands in his own private land. I therefore hope that the Minister will look into this complaint too.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with reference to clause 5 of the Bill, I just want to make a brief observation on a matter therein and perhaps seek a clarification from the Minister. In clause 5 there is an exception made for the felling or cutting of trees, i.e, the prevention of imminent danger. I take it that "imminent danger" in the Bill contemplates imminent danger to human life. Would the Minister clarify as to whether the term "imminent danger" also contemplates imminent danger to property and animals, like pigs and pets, etc.

(In Mandarin): Sir, I wonder if the Member for Sembawang would care to clarify this point. In the earlier part of his speech he supported the planting of trees, but in winding up he seemed to favour the cutting down of trees. He seemed to contradict himself. Therefore, may I ask him this: does he or does he not want to plant trees? Would he clarify this point?

(In Mandarin): Sir, I feel that the Parliamentary Secretary is wasting his breath with a lot of trash.

(In Mandarin): Sir, I think the last remark of the Member for Sembawang, namely "trash", is not proper. If he thinks it is proper, can he explain?

Sir, perhaps the Member for Sembawang still thinks that we are debating in Committee of Supply. He should have taken the opportunity during the last few days in Committee of Supply to grumble about trees planted in the wrong places or narrowing down roads. But he has made one relevant observation, and that is, about one big tree on a piece of vacant land which is about to be developed. The position is this. Where a housing developer applies to build on vacant land which may have beautiful trees there in existence for more than 50 or even 100 years, we send officers to the vacant land to mark out where the trees are, and the developer is still allowed to build provided he preserves some trees. We are not here to protect all the trees nor to stifle building development. We would allow developers to build provided sufficient trees are preserved. I could not follow the Member for Serangoon Gardens who wanted clarification, unless it appears in clause 10 which states: `Where the Commissioner is satisfied that any tree or plant, whether growing or not, is in an inflammable state or is likely to be dangerous to life or property or to cause an obstruction . . . the Commissioner may by notice in writing require the occupier of the land on which it is growing or lying to remove it within a time specified in the notice.' We do not propose to prevent all trees being felled or cut down. `There must be a few trees which are about to fall down either because of root trouble or some other disease to the trunk. Where a tree is likely to fall anti is a danger to life and/or property, permission can be sought for it to be cut.

(In Mandarin): Sir, I would like the Minister to clarify certain points. The Minister said that if there is a tree on a piece of private land which is to be developed the authority concerned would first send somebody to see where the tree is. For instance, if the land is 10,000 sq. ft. and the building area of 5,000 sq. ft. is to be sited in the centre of the land according to the plan, then the tree which stands in the centre has to be cut down before development can take place. There may also be a need to comply with other regulations such as the provision of car parks, pedestrian walk, an open space in the property, or other requirements, all of which necessitate the cutting down of that tree. Under these circumstances, although the tree is protected by the law, can the Minister enlighten the House whether it should be cut down.

Yes, permission will be given to cut down such a tree.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am in full support of the Bill which is tabled for Second Reading. However, I would like to point out some of the practical problems which may arise. As spelt out in clauses 11 to 14, the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation is empowered to take a deposit from the developer to ensure that he plants trees and lays out the open spaces in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the competent authority. More often than not, Sir, the developer has no intention of retaining ownership long after a project has been completed. He sells the property to various buyers, and sometimes there are differences of opinion as to what types of trees should be planted. Surely, the buyer should have a say in the type of trees to be planted in front of his house or the type of hedges to be planted around his fencing and compound. I wonder if the Minister would agree that some flexibility should be allowed in instances like this.

Yes, Sir, we have looked into this matter. Clause 11, for instance, was brought in for a specific reason. Previously some developers, after obtaining subdivision of the land and planning and building approval from the competent authority, would just sell the houses and leave the roads in a very bad state. As the Member has pointed out, developers want to sell. So they sell all the lots and then disappear; leaving the roads not even properly constructed nor the road lights installed. This is the sort of situation we want to prevent. Hence, this provision that on application for building approval one of the conditions imposed is that the developer plants certain trees. We cannot allow them to sell the land after development and then disappear. But as far as the type of trees which the developer or his purchaser may prefer, the Commissioner is really not rigid. They can choose the type of trees and we can make recommendations. All we want to ensure is that the person who gets the approval does something to plant in accordance with the plans which he has obtained. Hence the deposit.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr E. W. Barker]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.57 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this is a very short Bill and I will keep my speech short. The Bill seeks to amend the Trustees Act (Chapter 40) by increasing the borrowing power of an "approved company" from two-thirds to three-quarters of its mortgaged assets. Sections 3 and 4 of the Act lay down the prerequisites that must be complied with by a company before it can obtain the status of an "approved company" within the meaning of the Act. An "approved company" is defined in the Act as one that is incorporated in Singapore and which has a place of business in Singapore, having as its sole or primary object the promotion of home ownership by advancing purchase monies, repayable by instalments over a specified period of time. Such an "approved company" would then be permitted to seek loans from trustees in accordance with section 4 (1) (e) of the Trustees Act. Section 4 (2) of the Act, however, lays down the conditions under which trust funds may be invested with an "approved company". One of the conditions is that the total borrowing power of the "approved company" must not exceed two-thirds of its mortgaged assets. Representations have been received for an increase of an borrowing power of an "approved company" from two-thirds to four-fifths of the company's mortgaged assets as the present limit is considered too restrictive. Consideration has been given to these representations. It is, however, felt that the limit imposed by the Act should be raised from two-thirds to three-quarters instead of four-fifths of the mortgaged assets. This requires an amendment to the relevant section of the Trustees Act; hence the Bill before this House. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr E. W. Barker]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order Second Reading read. 4.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." It is perhaps a sad commentary on present-day living that there is such a large consumption of medicines. And because of this tremendous appetite for drugs, a vast pharmaceutical industry exists today. In Singapore the total value of trade in pharmaceutical products in 1973 was $170 million. For the four years 1969-1973, imports increased by over 80% while exports increased by 400%. In earlier times, medicines were of simpler chemical substances or derivatives of herbs. They were consumed in the form of powders prepared by pounding or in the form of liquid obtained by brewing the medicinal preparations. The advancement of science has made it possible for us to extract the active ingredients from these medicinal preparations, synthesising them and even modifying their structures to make them more potent and specific. In these forms they are then made available to the public in elegant pills, capsules, injectionables and suppositories. Even preparations used as home remedies in the traditional systems of treating ailments have changed beyond recognition. No longer do they conic only as dried parts of plants or animals; they are now sold in powder form or liquid extracts and some of them have been found to be mixed with dangerous substances making them no longer harmless remedies but potent poisons. The existing bewildering array of medicines of high potency and diverse effects has created certain problems of control. Whilst on the one hand the public needs to be protected and assured that the medicines that are available are safe and useful; on the other hand, those who are in the pharmaceutical industry should not be unduly discouraged from introducing new and more useful medicines. The existing controls are no longer adequate in dealing with a pharmaceutical trade that has grown tremendously and a situation where complex chemicals with far-reaching effects on the human being now form the bulk of medicines available in Singapore. The proposed Medicines Act is an omnibus act designed to bring together controls which were formerly exercised under various separate Acts. Most of the provisions of the Poisons Act will now be incorporated into the Medicines Act. Only a residual portion on the control of industrial poison will remain. The Medicines Act will supersede the Sale of Drugs Act and the Medicines (Advertisement and Sale) Act, both of which will be repealed. As the control of opium and other similar narcotic drugs is subject to international conventions because of international illegal trafficking, special controls will continue to be exercised under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The primary purpose of the Medicines Act is to protect the persons who use drugs, that is the customers who, by and large, have no knowledge of factors influencing the safety and usefulness of a medicine. The Act is to ensure that the medicine which a consumer obtains is safe and useful and of a quality he should expect. Since he is generally not knowledgeable in this matter, the influence brought to bear on him through advertisements must be fair. The drug he obtains, be it from a doctor who prescribes it or bought over the counter from a medicine shop, should comply with certain quality and safety standards. Conversely, neither should he have access to drugs for which he has no need of; nor should he consume drugs which he has no knowledge of their potency or safety. Under the Act, all medicinal products will come under strict scrutiny. Medicinal products prepared from herbs, animals or insects which have been used in traditional systems of treating ailments and which were largely not controlled previously will now be subject to similar scrutiny under the law. This is essential. These products are more often than not supplied as pills and potions where the original herb or animal part is no longer recognisable. It has been discovered that unscrupulous manufacturers and charlatans have resorted to adding highly active chemical substances to lend potency to their medicine. Arsenic discovered in several brands of preparations used widely in the treatment of asthma is an example. Potent hydrocortisones have been found in others and so too have mercury and lead. We can no longer ignore the large numbers and brands of medicinals which are freely available in the market, nor can we rightly assume that they are harmless. More often than not they are mixed with poisons and arc compounded by persons with no knowledge of basic pharmacy or pharmacology and distributed by persons whose sole interest is profit. Even cosmetics which may contain harmful or deleterious substances can also be brought under the purview of the Act. The simplest method of achieving the objective of protecting the public in regard to medicines is to impose a ban on advertisements of medicines anti couple this with a complete control over the dealing in medicines by only allowing sales by prescription and restricting the import or manufacture of medicines to a few types of brands. In fact such controls are practised in some countries. Such a measure would reduce considerably the expenditure on drugs and drug control. It would eliminate malpractices and unscrupulous dealings in drugs. However, we cannot adopt this simplistic attitude as we are an important centre of communications and trade. Nevertheless, we must exercise certain controls and restrictions while permitting legitimate pharmaceutical trade without compromising on the efficacy and quality of medicines available in Singapore. This Act attempts to do just that. The Act accordingly provides close control at all levels of the pharmaceutical trade - from the import and manufacture of drugs to the sale of drugs and even to the dispensing of drugs by practitioners and pharmacists. Strict regulations will be aimed at ensuring public safety. This is paramount. Further, in view of the general ignorance about medicine there are controls over advertisements and other techniques for promoting drug sales since doctors and patients are normally not in a position to verify the claims of manufacturers. The Act lays down in considerable detail the authority and the principles of control while the procedures for implementation will be set out in the regulations. The basic instrument to effect the objectives will be the product licence. Any persons wishing to import or manufacture any medicinal products will have to satisfy the licensing authority who is the Director of Medical Services that the product complies with certain quality standards. Medicinal products will be classified under two categories, (a) non-general sales list medicines and (b) general sales list medicines. Only qualified persons, i.e, doctors, dentists, pharmacists and veterinary surgeons, may deal with non-general sales list products. Medicines on the general sales list which are relatively harmless will be subject to less stringent control and may be sold as it is now being sold in our medicine shops, over the counter and without a prescription. Medicinal products will now be screened by the Ministry before they appear on the local market. Where necessary, the screening will be done by advisory committees. The evidence that is to be provided by applicants for a product licence will include details of pharmaceutical, bio-chemical and chemical formulation, conditions and locality of manufacture, details of qualified person supervising its manufacture, and results of trials carried out, and whether it complies with the laws of the country of manufacture if this is not manufactured locally. It shall be an offence to misrepresent any of these facts and the licensing authority is authorised to refuse to grant or revoke a licence and vary any or all of the conditions upon which the product licence has been granted. Penalties are provided for those who breach the law. Manufacturers of medicinal products will be required to apply for licences. The issuance for such a licence will be conditional on, amongst other requirements, suitability of personnel, equipment and premises, as well as adequacy of storage facilities. Only qualified persons should be employed by manufacturers to supervise production at each stage and deal in medicinal products. No person may manufacture a product if that product is not so licensed. Wholesale dealers will also be subject to licensing. The issuance of such a licence will be tied to amongst other requirements suitability of premises as well as the employment of qualified personnel. Their premises will have to be adequate with suitable storage and distributing space and equipment. Persons supervising the dealing of medicinal products at wholesale dealer's premises arc to be suitably qualified if dealers wish to deal in the sale and supply of non-general sales list products. It shall be mandatory for all licence holders to maintain adequate records for their transactions as well as ensure that such records are well and safely kept for inspection at reasonable times by the Ministry officials. Adequate records are required also to facilitate easy recall of drugs. The Bill also protects the purchaser from fraudulent representation on the safety, efficacy and quality of medicinal products. Medicinal products shall have to comply with the standards of relevant monographs if they are claimed to be sold or supplied in accordance with such specification. The Act has provisions for it to be brought into effect in parts. Thus one of the first parts to be implemented will be the notice categorising medicines on a general sales list and a non-general sales list. The next would be the regulations on registration of all medicines and medicinal products. The regulations would be for provisional licensing of medicinal products so that medicinal products on the market can continue to be available. In the advanced countries, research establishments undertake research into drugs, including clinical testing of their toxicity, effectiveness and side-effect. While our facilities and expertise in this field are not adequate for such comprehensive investigations of drugs, we are able for the time being to concentrate on testing the toxicity of drugs for which we can enlist the assistance of the Ministry of Science and Technology. We will also rely on the independent reports published regularly by the World Health Organisation and internationally renowned research centres for making rational judgments on the safety and efficacy of particular drugs and their use in Singapore. To administer the law will require a large expansion of the section of the Poisons Inspectorate of the Ministry of Health. This section will be responsible for the keeping of the registers, issue of licences and inspections. There are provisions in the law for the Minister to appoint committees. Perhaps the one which would be of more immediate interest would be a Committee to deal with appeals against decisions taken administratively on licensing. Other expert committees such as a committee on safety may be introduced in due course. Because of the complexity of the Act and its far-reaching controls which will affect the fabric of medical practice and the pharmaceutical trade, it is recommended that the Bill be committed to a Select Committee. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 4.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, arising from an oral question which I asked the Minister of State for Health sometime last year, I am glad to note that he has kept his promise by referring the Bill to a Select Committee. However, I would like to give some general observations why this Medicines Bill should be sent to a Select Committee. The Minister of State has correctly brought out the point which I intended to raise, and that is, it appears extremely restrictive that an appeal is decided by the Minister alone. I think he has indicated just now that it would be better that an appeal committee consisting of knowledgeable representatives from the relevant authorities be appointed to assess all appeals and makes its recommendations to the Minister for a final decision. In Part II, clause 10 (3) the definition of "product licence" is not clear for it does not positively say whether it is the brand or trade name or whether it is the chemical or generic name. Therefore, the question of issuing third party licence on patented products becomes relevant. It is reasonable to accept that products with patent protection still in force, third parties should not be allowed to apply for the licence. However, product licence holders can assign the right to a third party. A few medicinal authorities in the United States have questioned the adequacy of the United States Pharmacopoeia (USP) standards. As with the British Pharmacopoeia (BP) or the European Pharmacopoeia (EP) bio-availability standards are generally not available. Hence in clause 12 (1), the safety efficacy and quality of medicinal products should be thoroughly reexamined. Clause 18 (a), (b) and (c) allows the Minister to make regulations for clinical trials and for medicinal tests. It is recognised that we have limited clinical and testing facilities. It is therefore unlikely that we are in a position to conduct tests on tetratogenic effects or congenital deformities. In view of this, the licensing authority should be flexible in assessing submitted literature for medicinal products. An example of this test in case is the experience relating to the introduction of thalidomide in Germany resulting in thousands of babies being deformed. It is therefore essential to establish whether local manufacturing facilities provide certain safeguards on the consumers in case of such an unfortunate event for if they should seek monetary compensation, how do the manufacturers intend to meet these requirements? I think this is one area which is worth looking into. Again in Part III, clauses 34 and 35, and Part IV, clauses 37 (3) and 41(1), these provisions appear to discriminate against practising pharmacists or pharmacies. It appears reasonable that these similar provisions should also be extended to all those handling and dispensing medicinal products. Part V, clause 47 (1), this provision is not practical as most imported medicinal products are already produced by multi-national pharmaceutical corporations for the international market. Therefore, it may be difficult for the Minister to make regulations stipulating distinctive colours, shapes and markings of medicinal products. The whole of Part VI of the Bill deals with the promotion of sales of medicinal products and medical advertisements. This has extremely wide implications and requires closer study. Representations by interested and knowledgeable parties will be made to the Select Committee. The good intention of any Bill or Act will be thwarted and cannot achieve its required effects if the implementation process is not as effective and sensibly carried out. Hence proper consideration should be given to the formulation of various regulations by the licensing authority for the practical implementation of the Medicines Act, 1975, when it is finally passed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank the Member for River Valley for his views which will be conveyed to the Select Committee for consideration.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Resolved, "That the Medicines Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and the following Members: Dr Ang Kok Peng Mr Ivan Baptist Mr Chan Chee Seng Mr Ch'ng Jit Koon Mr P. Govindaswamy Haji Sha'ari Bin Tadin Dr Tan Eng Liang."-[Dr Ang Kok Peng].

Order. I propose to suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.55 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.22 p.m. until 4.55 p.m. Sitting resumed at 4.55 p.m.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The proposed amendment is to allow the Singapore Family Planning and Population Board to adopt certain financial procedures so that the Board's financial accountability can be placed on a firm footing. These amendments are now required of any statutory board set up by the Government. In keeping with this move, the amendment will require the Board to keep proper accounts and records of monetary transactions, ensure that payments made are credited and properly authorised and proper control is maintained over its assets; in short, the Board is to take steps to ensure that money given to it is well and properly spent. It also allows the Board's accounts to be audited by the Auditor-General. However, where it has been decided that the Board's accounts are to be audited by any other qualified auditor, it shall be done with his concurrence. The duties of the auditor are clearly spelt out. He shall have to certify that financial statements reflect fairly the financial transactions and state of the Board as well as report on such matters which he considers should be reported upon at any time. A penalty is also imposed on persons who wilfully obstruct the auditor from performing his duty such as preventing access to any records which he may wish to see or withholding of information relevant to his work. The auditor is also entitled to make copies or extracts of documents. Further, apart from submitting his annual report the Auditor is empowered to inform the Minister on any relevant matter that comes to his notice at any time. Where the Auditor-General is not the auditor, copies of the audited financial statements are to be forwarded to him at the same time as and when the auditor submits accounts to the Board. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Dr Ang Kok Peng]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 5.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill will bring about an amalgamation of the nursing and midwifery professions by having one controlling body to regulate their activities. These two professions are now quite separate. Each is governed by its own regulatory body: the nurses by the Nursing Board and the midwives by the Midwives Board. Both Boards were established under authority of separate laws. The first legislation on nurses known as the Nurses Registration Ordinance came into effect in February, 1949, and a Nursing Board was established to maintain a register of nurses and to regulate on the training and conduct of nurses. The legislation for midwives was introduced very much earlier. The Midwives Ordinance was brought into effect in July, 1917. Amendments were passed subsequently in 1923 and 1924, and in 1959 new regulations were incorporated. Under this Ordinance, a Midwives Board was established with the function of maintaining a register and regulating the training and conduct of midwives. Times have changed. Midwifery has now become a subject of study in the training of nurses. It is also taken as a course in the post-basic nursing training. Furthermore, fewer people arc choosing midwifery training solely. The sophistication of our population, increasing urbanisation and the extensive and comprehensive medical services have reduced the demand for domiciliary midwifery. More than 80% of all deliveries in Singapore are now undertaken in our Government medical institutions. The rest are delivered mainly in maternity homes. Only a few are delivered by private midwives at home. Consequently midwifery should logically be regarded as another branch of nursing, the separate law on midwifery be abolished, and the activities in regard to nursing and midwifery be put under the jurisdiction of a single board The Singapore Nursing Board. This Board will supersede the Nursing and the Midwives Boards. The consolidation of the two professions and services will also lead to administrative convenience. This, however, does not mean that midwives will play a role secondary to that of the nurses, neither does it suggest that midwifery is to be governed by a nursing body. On the contrary, the composition of the Board allows for both midwives and nurses to be represented. In addition to the traditional role of midwives which was confined in the main to the delivering of babies and giving advice to mothers on the care of children, the midwives nowadays also have an important role to play in family planning by giving counsel to parents on the need for planning a small family. The Singapore Nursing Board will be responsible for ensuring that nurses and midwives who are to be emplaced on the register or roll have been adequately trained in accordance with the courses and examinations conducted by the Board. The Board shall also have powers to determine what qualifications are necessary for anyone seeking to be emplaced on its register or roll. In short, it will oversee, maintain and improve the standards of practice and conduct of nurses and midwives. The Board is empowered also to impose punitive measures on those who choose to bring the professions to disrepute. Accordingly the Board is empowered to remove the names of such persons from the register or roll or impose as it sees fit lesser penalties such as cautioning, censuring or suspending persons for adverse practice. The Board is also empowered where it deems fit to restore names of persons to the register or roll. Aggrieved persons are allowed to appeal to the High Court. A registrar of the Board is to be appointed and he shall be responsible for the preparation and maintenance of the register and roll and act as secretary to the Board. The Act also prevents unqualified persons from taking the titles of nurse or midwife so that the public will not be misled. An offence under this section carries a fine not exceeding $1,000. The Bill seeks to repeal the Nurses Registration Act and the Midwives Act. However, those whose names are already on the register or roll of nurses and midwives prior to the passing of this Bill will be deemed to have been registered or enrolled. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Dr Ang Kok Peng]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 5.10 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Income Tax (Amendment) Bill is necessary, first, to give legislative authority for a number of income tax concessions; second, to further strengthen the law against income tax offenders; and third, to streamline procedures and improve existing legislation. A number of tax concessions were announced by me previously in Parliament. These included income tax relief for supporting parents and grandparents and child relief for supporting handicapped children over 16 years. Clause 8 of the Bill provides for these concessions which need no further elaboration. Another announced concession was that with effect from the year of assessment 1975, annuity payments will be taxed only on that portion deemed to be income, the balance being considered capital and not taxable. Clause 3 (b) will provide for this using a simple rule adopted by actuaries in some countries to determine the income portion of an annuity payment. I will not trouble Honourable Members with details on how this rule works except to say that the method of apportionment is reasonable and is favoured because of its simplicity in calculation both for the Inland Revenue Department and the annuitant. Clause 3 (b) will also provide for the method of taxing gains from Negotiable Certificates of Deposits (NCDs) which I hope will soon make its appearance in the Singapore money market. An announcement on this will be made very shortly. Because of the current uncertainty in the financial world, the introduction of NCDs in Singapore has been delayed but I am confident that eventually NCDs will be an instrument commonly traded in the Singapore money market. Because of our desire to consolidate the development of Singapore as a maritime centre, it has been our policy to give fiscal incentives to encourage shipowners to register their ships in Singapore. I announced previously that the balancing charge which may arise on the sale of a Singapore ship will not be subject to tax and that there will be income tax exemption for crews working on board Singapore registered ships. Clauses 3 (a) and 4 (a) provide for these concessions. In addition, I am proposing a new concession under clause 5. Hitherto, although income from a Singapore ship is exempt from tax, depreciation allowances on the ship are still required to be charged against the exempt income. The effect is to reduce the amount of tax exempt dividends that could be declared by shipping companies. I propose to lift this requirement and allow Singapore ships the option to claim or not to claim depreciation allowances. However, should a ship leave the Singapore registry and become liable to Singapore income tax, any unclaimed depreciation allowances accumulated during the period of its Singapore registration will not be allowed. At the same time, it is also proposed that tax exempt shipping income be separated from other taxable income or losses of the same company. In the past, shipping losses may be used to offset against non-shipping taxable income which is undesirable. Clause 7 is also concerned with depreciation allowances and provides for accelerated depreciation over three years on capital investment in antipollution devices. This concession is in keeping with Government's policy to promote a cleaner and healthier atmosphere in industrial estates and in the community as a whole. The export of our manufactured goods is the basis of our industrial strategy. I am pleased to see the number of trade missions organised recently to visit potential markets to push exports of Singapore-made goods. To assist these efforts in export promotion, I announced that double deduction will be allowed for expenses incurred in approved overseas trade fairs, exhibitions or trade missions organised to promote the exports of Singapore-manufactured goods. This concession, however, will not apply to enterprises which are already enjoying export or other incentives under the Economic Expansion Incentives Act. Clause 6 of the Bill provides for the double deduction concession which will have retrospective effect from 1st April, 1973. I now come to the amendments in the Bill designed to tighten the law against income tax offenders. Income tax is the mainstay of our revenue structure accounting for more than one-third of total revenue. Compliance by taxpayers is therefore of paramount importance and Government must see to it that every person who is liable pays his fair share. The design of a penalty system for tax evasion which without excessive harshness would yet be punitive enough to deter would-be offenders is no easy task. Some guidance is provided by experience in the day-to-day administration of the law. And such experience has shown that certain modifications in the law dealing with offenders should be made. Clause 13 of the Bill provides for modification of the penalty for failure to make an income tax return or furnish particulars. There have been too many cases where a fourth, fifth or sixth conviction has not had the desired effect of getting the taxpayer to submit his returns or accounts. The present penalty of a maximum fine of $1,000 appears ineffective. It is now proposed that if the conviction is a second or subsequent conviction relating to the same year of assessment, the taxpayer shall be made to suffer a further penalty of $50 a day for every day that the offence is continued after conviction. It is also proposed to remove the requirement of a possible minimum of six months' imprisonment in addition to a fine for taxpayers who are convicted for omitting or making false returns without reasonable excuse or through fraud. A minimum six months' imprisonment seems too harsh in this case and invariably this has led to offenders being let off with only a fine. Clauses 14 and 15 of the Bill will allow for the length of imprisonment to he decided by the Court. However, for cases of fraudulent evasion for more than three years, a minimum six months' sentence will remain. At present, only the High Court may impose the full penalty in respect of offences under the Income Tax Act. As a good number of income tax cases are dealt with in the District or Magistrate's Court, clause 16 will empower the District or Magistrate's Court to impose the full penalty as well. Clause 10 will require a married woman to sign and furnish a return in respect of income assessable in her husband's name, if deemed necessary by the Comptroller. This will make it possible for the Comptroller to take action against the wife where she derives unearned income which is assessable only in her husband's name and which has not been declared to the Comptroller. Hitherto, it was not possible to prosecute the husband since he may genuinely be unaware of the wife's undeclared income. At the time it is not possible to prosecute the wife since she is not assessable on this income. The amendment will plug this loophole. In the past, provisions in the Income Tax Act regarding the general secrecy of income tax matters prevented the Comptroller from making a complaint to any Professional Body even if he is aware of blatant unprofessional practices. This is an obstruction to the course of justice. Clause 2 will take out this fetter on the Comptroller to allow him to make a complaint to the appropriate Professional Body of professional misconduct against a person in his professional dealings with the Comptroller. Finally, I come to those amendments which are intended to streamline procedures and improve existing legislation. Clause 18 will restrict the double child relief given to taxpayers whose children are studying abroad. It has been found that a number of parents want their children to be "expatriates" at an early age by sending them to expensive school abroad. In the past, double relief could be claimed for these children but there seems no reason why Government should continue to doubly subsidize such unnecessary expenditure. Clause 18 therefore provides that double relief will only he allowed where the course of study abroad pursued by the child is either not available in Singapore or the child is unable to gain admission to an institution of higher learning in Singapore. Income of public entertainers is exempted from tax if their visits are supported from public funds of foreign governments. Sometimes, the financial support from foreign governments is purely nominal. Clause 4 (b) proposes to make it clear that exemption will apply only if the visits of public entertainers are substantially supported from public funds of foreign governments. To simplify procedures, clause 17 proposes to vest the Minister with powers to amend the First, Third and Fourth Schedules to the Income Tax Act. The First Schedule deals with income tax exemption for statutory boards and other institutions. The Third Schedule concerns tax on income held by the Custodian of Enemy Property. The Fourth Schedule lists the Government loan stocks where interest earned therefore will be subject to half the tax. As the Minister is already empowered to reduce tax or give exemption in the main Act, it would simplify procedures to vest in him the powers to amend these three Schedules as well. It is intended that the remaining two Schedules in the Act, the Second and the Fifth Schedules, which deal with the rates of income tax and amount of child reliefs respectively should continue to be amended only by Parliament as these two Schedules would affect a great number of people. The remaining amendments are either consequential in nature or are meant to tidy up procedural matters. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 5.18 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I merely would like to say a few words on clause 2 of this Bill, which provision may have quite unforeseen consequences in its implementation. One could foresee a situation in which a professional man may have committed professional misconduct, justifying the Comptroller laying a complaint before the appropriate professional body authorised to take disciplinary action but whose client may be entirely innocent. In such a situation any complaint laid by the Comptroller would result in the confidential tax problem of the client being discussed by other professional men who sit in the appropriate disciplinary committee and who may well represent other clients with conflicting vested interests in the same matter. Such a situation would nullify the protection afforded to a taxpayer by the secrecy provision of the Income Tax Act. Whilst I agree that clause 2 is desirable for preventing a particular form of professional abuse, the machinery for its implementation, as it now stands, is wholly inappropriate in the context of a taxpayer's rights. This particular problem should be looked into in greater depth, in fact, Sir, on second thought, I really wonder what prevents the Comptroller from laying such a complaint before the appropriate disciplinary body in a given case regardless of the provision of the proposed clause 2. Apart from these comments, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I just wish to make observations on some of the clauses in this Bill. On clause 3 (a) of the Bill, I am sure the shipping community will welcome this proviso which no doubt will give a fillip to shipping activity in Singapore. This proviso excludes from tax the balancing charge arising on the sale of a Singapore ship. Up to now, because of the absence of such a provision, the Comptroller has sought to tax this charge. This measure has to some extent defeated the purpose of section 13 (A) of the Act, that is, to exempt from tax the income derived from the employment or charter of a Singapore registered ship. The other clause that I wish to dwell on is clause 4 (a) of the Bill. I feel that this new amendment will no doubt further assist Singapore shipping but something should he said in respect of the drafting of this clause. In clause 4 (a) paragraph (w) the use of the term "substantially" can give rise to problems of construction especially in the absence of a definition of the term in this Bill or in the Income Tax Act. I am led to wonder why the draftsmen have not chosen to employ a phraseology giving a definite number of days in a year instead, as in clause 4 (b) where the words "sixty days in the year" are used. Lastly, on clause 5 (a), (b) and (c) of the Bill, this is another favourable development. This amendment no longer makes it mandatory for capital allowances to be deducted from the income of a shipping enterprise. At present, this is necessary in determining the exempt profits, the resultant of which is that in many cases, as the Minister quite rightly said, the huge allowances cancel the profits leaving little or nothing for dividend distribution.

Sir, I am in some difficulty in replying to these criticisms because they are matters of technical detail. On the first proposal about revealing information on taxpayers' matters I thought that we had taken care of the problem which was presented and that this had been carefully drafted. I do not know in what way this provision can be improved. If the Member for Kuo Chuan has any special change in the drafting, perhaps this could be moved in the Committee stage. I thought that this provision was satisfactory. I assume that professional bodies often get information which they must keep confidential even in their proceedings before the professional body. The names of the particular taxpayer could be suppressed. Names could be omitted or replaced by alphabetical symbols and the details of the taxpayer need not be given. The nature of the misconduct probably relates only to a particular act which may not concern the whole of the taxpayer's financial affairs. I would be prepared to listen to any desirable amendment in Committee. With regard to the comments by the Member for Serangoon Gardens on balancing charges, I think he welcomes clause 3. But he thought that under clause 4 (a) (w) the word "substantially" should be defined. I will give consideration to some administrative definition of the word "substantially", but I do not know whether in fact a line can be drawn as we have drawn for clause 4 (b) (new subsection (4) ) where 60 days were given. This is a well recognised limitation for that particular purpose -employment exercised in Singapore by short-term visiting employees. I doubt whether there can be a very much closer definition than the word "substantially". The point is that in some cases the seaman is from Singapore and he goes on a ship. The ship probably operates elsewhere but the seaman comes for an indeterminate period, I suppose on leave or for other purposes, back in Singapore. Administratively, it is possible to come to some satisfactory arrangement but I do not know whether we can do much better in the legal definition in stating the total number of days. The Member made another comment on clause 5 (a) which I was not clear about. This is in respect of allowances which leave nothing for income distribution. I thought that was a desirable amendment.

Sir, I did mention that was a desirable amendment. I only referred to clause 4 (b).

Sir, since that is a desirable amendment, I do not have any particular comment then.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Hon Sui Semi]. Bill considered in Committee.

5.31 p.m. Clause I ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 - Question proposed, "That clause 2 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was wondering whether we can really delete the whole of clause 2 for the time being and come back to it when Parliament sits at a future date if at all necessary, because if the information which the Comptroller would like to lay before the Disciplinary Committee does not involve a confidential type of matter then, of course, the secrecy provisions of the Act will not apply at all. He could just as well lay the complaint before the Committee. So I do not see how clause 2 is really going to make any difference to the present situation.

Sir, it is a question of interpretation. The Comptroller has been very scrupulous in believing that he cannot even lay a complaint. But this clause will enable him to lay a complaint in a way which will not reveal very much of the taxpayer's financial affairs. We want to be sure that we can, in fact, lay a complaint. We thought that at the moment this was debarred because of the secrecy provisions.

This would really imply that the nature of complaints that the Comptroller may lay before the Disciplinary Committee will involve confidential tax matters. That is why he had a doubt in his own mind as to whether he could do it or not. This is where the problem is because once it goes before other professional men then, of course, a conflict between respective clients becomes relevant.

Perhaps, Mr Hon, we can postpone the Committee stage and reconsider the Bill later.

Sir, I think this is a matter of principle. I believe that if the Member takes the view that making a complaint means that we must reveal information, then it means that we cannot make a complaint of misconduct. My point is that the complaint can be laid, the name of the taxpayer suppressed, and the details of his tax affairs need not be revealed except to the extent of that particular piece of misconduct. At the moment the interpretation of the Comptroller is that he cannot even lay a complaint because of the prohibition in the Act which provides that there should be nothing which would indicate that a taxpayer's affairs have been dealt with in such a complaint. I think we want to relax it to the extent that a complaint can be laid but we would, as we have done previously, be quite scrupulous in trying to omit details which would give information to other people about the affairs of the taxpayer. I do not know whether we can resolve it by just postponing consideration in Committee. It is not a matter of drafting. It is a matter of whether, in fact, the principle must be preserved - that nothing should be revealed at all so that we cannot even lay a complaint.

That is so, Mr Speaker, Sir, but if the client concerned is completely innocent then, of course, it is going to be very hard on him just because his professional adviser has mis-conducted himself. The whole question relates to the nature of the evidence that is going to be placed before the professional body.

On this matter, may I give the assurance that we will take the greatest pains to prevent any revelation of tax matters relating to taxpayers. But we will in fact only do it to the extent that complaints can be laid against certain professional men in the discharge of their duties.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, Sir. We will accept that for the time being, and perhaps we will take it up in a different context if the problems were to arise on a scale to warrant it.

Sir, I would be prepared to accept suggestions for administering this particular section which would satisfy both the professional bodies and my Ministry as to the ability to make representations.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 3 to 5 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 6 -

In page 5, in lines 33 and 34, the word "subsistance" appearing therein will be corrected to read "subsistence", that is, with an "e" instead of an "a". This will be done. Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 7 to 18 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 5.38 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill seeks to amend the Economic Development Board Act so as to provide for:-

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Hon Sui Sen]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 5.47 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." It is already an offence to apply a false trade description to goods under the Merchandise Marks Act. However, this Act, which was first enacted in 1917, has many shortcomings and is out-of-date for our present day needs. It is considered therefore that the Merchandise Marks Act should be replaced by new and more comprehensive legislation. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Bill have been drafted in consultation with the Consumers' Association of Singapore (CASE) and are on lines similar to the Trade Description Acts of Malaysia and the United Kingdom. The more extensive provisions in the Bill prohibiting false and misleading description of goods will not only protect the interests of consumers, but also those of honest traders. The coverage of the Bill is not limited to descriptions appearing on products, but extends also to false information given in the course of enquiries or advertisements or oral statements. The Bill also provides for the disclosure of additional particulars of goods where such information is lacking and of importance to consumers. It is not intended, however, that the disclosure provisions will require the publication of trade secrets or formulae. Indeed, the Bill makes it an offence for any person to disclose to any other person such information if he has obtained them in pursuance of the Act. Further, the Bill provides that advertisements are to be regulated so as to prevent misleading statements in relation to the goods being advertised. The consumer is entitled to expect that the goods purchased fit the description given in the advertisements. The Bill also relates to the safe composition, design and construction of goods for the protection of consumers. On safety and health grounds, it is required that certain goods be of stipulated minimum standards. This is not a new requirement as we already have minimum standards set for certain goods, for example, crash helmets, industrial helmets, hair-sprays and the like. It is only after careful examination of the need for minimum standards for consumers' safety that they will be required. The Bill includes provisions for the Minister to make regulations for the purposes I have mentioned, i.e., to require informative marking and to impose safety requirements and also to allow exemptions of goods from the operations of such regulations. It is the intention that in such regulations, exemptions will be given for goods for export or re-export in any particular case, or in respect of the particular categories of goods. Members are therefore assured that it is not the intention of the Government to restrict regional or international trade. In the enforcement of the law, the ability to take prompt action will gain favourable consumer reaction and will also act as a deterrent to the commission of offences. The Controller of Consumer Protection is therefore vested with the authority to compound offences for a sum not exceeding $2,000. Such an enabling provision will make administration of the Act less costly as well as help to impress on the traders the need to adhere to the law. Members may also like to know that under the Act, the Court convicting a person for an offence may, at the same time, award damages to the injured party up to $1,000 without prejudice to the right of the party to take civil action to claim damages beyond this amount. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Hon Sui Sen]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed."-[Mr E. W. Barker]. Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes to Six o'clock p.m. to a date to be fixed.